Warning; We are not a politically correct site. Don't like us? Don't read.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Oh! The irony...What Happens When a Feminist’s Son is Accused of Rape?

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms.
magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive
candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have
expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against
Women Act.
But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college
in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of
“nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their
relationship a few years earlier.
What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass
into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of
all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible
dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.
It began with a text of desperation. “CALL ME. URGENT. NOW.”
That was how my son informed me that not only had charges been
brought against him but that he was ordered to appear to answer these
allegations in a matter of days. There was no preliminary inquiry on the
part of anyone at the school into these accusations about behavior
alleged to have taken place a few years earlier, no consideration of the
possibility that jealousy or revenge might be motivating a spurned
young ex-lover to lash out. Worst of all, my son would not be afforded a
presumption of innocence.
In fact, Title IX, that so-called guarantor of equality between the
sexes on college campuses, and as applied by a recent directive from the
Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, has obliterated the
presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of
justice. On today’s college campuses, neither “beyond a reasonable
doubt,” nor even the lesser “by clear and convincing evidence” standard
of proof is required to establish guilt of sexual misconduct.
These safeguards of due process have, by order of the federal
government, been replaced by what is known as “a preponderance of the
evidence.” What this means, in plain English, is that all my son’s
accuser needed to establish before a campus tribunal is that the
allegations were “more likely than not” to have occurred by a margin of
proof that can be as slim as 50.1% to 49.9%.
How does this campus tribunal proceed to evaluate the accusations? Upon what evidence is it able to make a judgment?
The frightening answer is that like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla,
the tribunal does pretty much whatever it wants, showing scant regard
for fundamental fairness, due process of law, and the well-established
rules and procedures that have evolved under the Constitution for
citizens’ protection. Who knew that American college students are
required to surrender the Bill of Rights at the campus gates?
My son was given written notice of the charges against him, in the
form of a letter from the campus Title IX officer. But instead of
affording him the right to be fully informed, the separately listed
allegations were a barrage of vague statements, rendering any defense
virtually impossible. The letter lacked even the most basic information
about the acts alleged to have happened years before. Nor were the
allegations supported by any evidence other than the word of the
ex-girlfriend.
The hearing itself was a two-hour ordeal of unabated grilling by the
school’s committee, during which, my son later reported, he was
expressly denied his request to be represented by counsel or even to
have an attorney outside the door of the room. The questioning, he said,
ran far afield even from the vaguely stated allegations contained in
the so-called notice. Questions from the distant past, even about
unrelated matters, were flung at him with no opportunity for him to give
thoughtful answers.
The many pages of written documentation that my son had put
together—which were directly on point about his relationship with his
accuser during the time period of his alleged wrongful conduct—were
dismissed as somehow not relevant. What was relevant, however, according
to the committee, was the unsworn testimony of “witnesses” deemed to
have observable knowledge about the long-ago relationship between my son
and his accuser.
That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer
pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental
fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser’s email and social
media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son
was instructed by the committee not to “discuss this matter” with any
potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to
him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his
accuser.
Thankfully, I happen to be an attorney and had the resources to
provide the necessary professional assistance to my son. The charges
against him were ultimately dismissed but not before he and our family
had to suffer through this ordeal. I am of course relieved and most
grateful for this outcome. Yet I am also keenly aware not only of how
easily this all could have gone the other way—with life-altering
consequences—but how all too often it does.
Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of
impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to
fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of
this latest surge in political correctness. Few have a lawyer for a
mother, and many may not know about the Foundation for Individual Rights
in Education, which assisted me in my research.
There are very real and horrifying instances of sexual misconduct and
abuse on college campuses and elsewhere. That these offenses should be
investigated and prosecuted where appropriate is not open to question.
What does remain a question is how we can make the process fair for
everyone.
I fear that in the current climate the goal of “women’s rights,” with
the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit
complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our
most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not
unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to
correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are
attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.By Judith Grossman
—————————————————————————————————Women Against Feminism UK: We hear a lot from feminists that
feminism is a perfect movement made by perfect women (feminists), who
don’t hate men, who would never lie about domestic violence, the wage
gap, patriarchy, the “rape culture,” etc. Lies. Lies. Lies. This is what happens when a sacralized victim group gains
power. These blind social justice warriors talk nonsense and hate
common sense and logic. What’s about a good investigation? The feminist Judith Grossman should be ashamed of herself.
She was always oh-so aware of injustice except when it was done to
others and when it was done by those on “her side.”It’s only when her
son is attacked that she wakes up temporarily and sees what she and her
comrades have wrought over the years.